Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (44071)	7/18/2001 12:14:54 PM
From: Luce Wildebeest	Respond to of 64865

I congratulate you for a fine post.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (44071)	7/18/2001 12:20:42 PM
From: The Ox	Respond to of 64865

Excellent post KR!

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (44071)	7/18/2001 12:44:15 PM
From: Prognosticator	Respond to of 64865

Excellent post, accurate summary of the nightmare faced by windows developers, one which makes .NET a real uphill battle for MSFT, and makes Java so compelling. Don't worry about SUNW, they know better than to fight the next war with tactics from the last. They are way ahead of MSFT in the consumer device space with their J2ME, and way ahead of MSFT in the enterprise space with J2EE. Believe me, nobody should try to run a production J2EE web server on a Windows platform, the threading model is so inefficient that performance is 1/2 to 1/3 of the equivalent clock-speed SUNW system, and of course SUNW system scale beautifully. And nobody can squeeze WinCE into a phone, unless the phone is a heavy slab. MSFT own the desktop, will continue to own the desktop for ever, but the desktop is the last war, and SUNW is squeezing them from both ends. P.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (44071)	7/18/2001 1:23:31 PM
From: E_K_S	Respond to of 64865

Hi Kevin: I run WindowsNT on all of my machines here at home and recently installed Service Pak 6.0a. I noticed that MSFT had postponed their release of Service Pak 7.0 (until next year) but SP6.0a now seems to run fine (earlier versions of Service Pak 6 were not stable). It will be interesting to see if MSFT finally has a stable platform with WindowsNT. I still got memory leakage over time when I was running Service Pak 5 and would have to reload/restart the OS about once every two weeks. So far Service Pak 6.0a has been fine (now running 24x7 for three weeks). However, many of the business applications that I have reviewed (especially the servers that will control VOIP applications) need sigma 9 stability and are written using Solaris OS. In fact, at the Broadband 2001 trade show last month (here in Silicon Valley), 100% of the business telcom server applications utilized the SOLARIS OS. Last year at the same tradeshow, there were two or three vendors that had MSFT solotuions but none of those vendors were at the tradeshow this year. IMO, if MSFT can achieve a sigma 9 stability record with its business OS, the arguments you make regarding enterprise OS migration are quite true and make economic sense. I just do not see it happening any time soon for large enterprise customers. I suppose the sector to watch are the specialized OEM's that manufacture and support the next generation telcom equipment and how fast they are in supporting the new variations of Windows (if at all). IMO the OS that is finally developed with proven stability and good performance characteristics that work with Intel's new 64 bit itanium processor (and other future high end Intel server chips) will eventually be the industry's OS of choice. This is why I believe SUNW needs to port their SOLARIS OS to Intel's next generation server processors now, work out the bugs and establish a solid operating track record. EKS

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (44071)	7/18/2001 1:32:27 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I'm glad you enjoyed the kudos of others on this thread-- the Sun thread people who cheer on the guy that says Sun is doomed--but yes, I found your post to be mostly a rehash of the usual Wintel kool-aid. It has been Microsoft's public plan for AT LEAST six or seven years to consolidate its multiple O/S products into a single one-size-fits-all product (like Solaris has always been) based on the Windows NT code base. This idea certainly didn't originate with Windows XP. On the contrary, Windows XP can only be viewed as a symbol of Microsoft's inability to execute. Windows NT 5 was supposed to be the release that caused the consolidation to happen. A consumer version of NT 5 that replaced Windows 95 was announced, and was supposed to come out, in 1998 or early 99. They poured "huge resources" into making that work. According to you, when Microsoft pours huge resources into something, it happens. But this didn't happen. Rather, Microsoft underestimated the size of that transition (immodest aside: as I predicted on this thread in 1997), and FAILED to develop a one-size-fits-all O/S on its original schedule. Thus M$FT was forced to: -- rename NT 5 into Windows 2000 and, in an embarrassing last-minute about-face, release it primarily as a high-end corporate desktop system, -- leave NT 4 as the primary server system, -- release Windows 98 and Me, additional unintended members of the antiquated 16-bit-core line, as the consumer/low-end desktop instead. Boy, that Windows Movie Maker was a real boon to customers! Windows XP is the "we finally got it right" release. Microsoft's peerless spin machine will of course make it into some earthshaking thing. But all it really signals is that they finally stopped tripping over their own feet and got a consumer NT shipping four years after the fact. You are correct in stating that Windows 98 and Windows ME were "counterproductive". They helped keep M$FT's revenues up, but their main function was to muddy the waters and make it harder for IT support organizations. Windows 98 and ME were basically acts of hostility by Microsoft toward their own monopoly captive markets. Both should have been free patches. I totally disagree that Windows 2000 was counterproductive. I believe it was and remains the only credible desktop operating system product that Microsoft has ever released, they only one they can be proud of. It was hard to adopt because Microsoft put their own interests ahead of customers' interest, as they always do. I would normally quibble with your concluding logical leap. You assert that because Microsoft is Microsoft, they must eventually win when they finally achieve their long-fumbled goal of consolidating their systems and, for the first time ever, really making things easier for their customer. Yes, Windows XP should simplify customers' lives if it goes as planned. But your conclusion assumes, among other things (and without support), that Sun will stand still while Microsoft "pours huge resources" into making everything peach keen. It ignores the fact that Microsoft has never been anything but a marketing company with second-rate engineering. The consolidation, as you sort of point out, will take years, will be jarring and difficult for customers and long-suffering OEM partners--especially with new licensing schemes--and will be forced to incorporate a 64-bit transition to newer Intel processors. To you, like all believers in Wintel, their success is just a given, as is Sun's death. It's not, or at least it shouldn't be. However, unfortunately Sun actually HAS been standing still. For reasons that still escape me, this tortoise-and-hare situation continues to play horrifyingly out: Sun, with what seemed an unassailable lead in servers, runs in place for over a year, announcing nothing of note but J-word drivel while their competitors in both hardware and software get all the time they need to comfortably recover from disastrous miscues. Nothing is more frustrating for a Sun shareholder. I don't agree with you that Microsoft must win because they are who they are. The battle has been Sun's to lose for years, and Sun may indeed lose it by their own inaction. Nothing personal. Regards, --QS